A 298 3V stroker!!!!

[ranger04]

Not only do they work as they do on any engine, there is going to be alot more comming down the pike. Anytime you increase displacement it's going to add hp and more important, torque at a lower rpm than say cams. I don't know if you have a hard on for me personally or strokers in general, but you need to get over it. No one is pushing anything, the information is out there. This is just the base stroker, they will be doing different things with it in future issue's. Raised compression is no big deal, so you gave to run 93 octane, so do most tunes. Evedrthing they did to that engine is what most people do anyway without a stroker. Since you have set your self up as the stroker police, maybe you should contact JDM and tell them there kit is BS and doesn't work and debate with them since your an expert on the subject. I posted this as general info, not to be attacked for liking strokers. Saying strokers don't work is over the top, I'm not a rocket scientist and even I know the benifits of larger displacement on any engine. Thats why a 5.4 producing 375 foot pounds, DUH, larger displacement. I'm not going to argue with you as you have ruined my thread anyway. You need to contact JDM and voice your concerns with them, but you won't because your affraid of getting an education on the subject. I'm done with this, over and out.

 

[Gearbanger 101]

Debate on this all you'd like guys, just keep it civil.

A turbo is a bit stealthier than a S/C. The only time you notice the turbo is when you start getting near WOT. The S/C whines/whistles from the turn of the key.

I just tell people I have a couple of noisy idler pullies.

 

[TGJ]

Not only do they work as they do on any engine, there is going to be alot more comming down the pike. Anytime you increase displacement it's going to add hp and more important, torque at a lower rpm than say cams. I don't know if you have a hard on for me personally or strokers in general, but you need to get over it. No one is pushing anything, the information is out there. This is just the base stroker, they will be doing different things with it in future issue's. Raised compression is no big deal, so you gave to run 93 octane, so do most tunes. Evedrthing they did to that engine is what most people do anyway without a stroker. Since you have set your self up as the stroker police, maybe you should contact JDM and tell them there kit is BS and doesn't work and debate with them since your an expert on the subject. I posted this as general info, not to be attacked for liking strokers. Saying strokers don't work is over the top, I'm not a rocket scientist and even I know the benifits of larger displacement on any engine. Thats why a 5.4 producing 375 foot pounds, DUH, larger displacement. I'm not going to argue with you as you have ruined my thread anyway. You need to contact JDM and voice your concerns with them, but you won't because your affraid of getting an education on the subject. I'm done with this, over and out.

Hey xxxxx,

Alright, I am being nice by not referring to you as a name yet. My patience with you has run out. More Displacement does not equal more power all the time. Ford proved that with the modular V8's.

I am going to do to you what I do to everyone else that pushed Strokers and the 5.4 2V- 3V in N/A applications. Show me one 5.4 or 4.9 - 5.1 Stroker that has the exact same mods as a 4.6 and makes more power N/A. If the stroker or the 5.4 has ported heads, the 4.6 has to have ported heads, etc. List every mod and the HP and where you found it. I guarantee you, I will find a 4.6 with the exact same mods that has more HP. I have argued this for years and have yet to see someone disprove it.

For years, I have heard on a TBird board how much better the 5.4 2V is than the 4.6. Years they have been called out. Today the 5.4 2V N/A has not been able to catch the 4.6 2V in N/A trim with similar mods, the best is 20 RWHP less. There is a reason why Ford never put the 5.4 2V or 5.4 3V in a N/A performance application.

What you fail to see is that the 2V and 3V heads do not flow enough air for the 4.6 N/A. They are barely adequate for those applications. Adding displacement via Stroke is making that situation worse. You run into the same problems the 5.4 has, it runs out of breath by 4000 RPM's. Ported 3V heads alleviate that problem to some degree. Ported 3V heads work really well on the 4.6 but with the greater displaced motor by stroking it, again runs out of air higher up in the RPM band.

I am posting a thread from another board. I suggest you read it, some of the top Ford Tuners and Modular builders post in it. You will learn a lot about the Stroker/Big-Bore debate instead of posting stupidity...

Link deleted, info to be posted next couple of days.

You now know partially as to why I don't deal with or recommend anyone to deal with JDM.

 

[Jenns01TA]

Scott is no longer at VT - that blows.

TGJ - We agree 100% on this point. Thank you for retaining your patience. I have an engineer at work that reminds me of you. He has little patience for people with limited knowledge and plain stupidity sends the man sideways for days.

Now, it is unfortunate the link is to modulardepot. Is it possible for you to rehash the information in this thread? I would like to get the information in this thread, as Scott and VT Engines know their poop. I don't want to come across all Nazi style and simply remove the link. Can we compromise on this and have you pull the content to this thread?

 

[TGJ]

Scott is no longer at VT - that blows.

TGJ - We agree 100% on this point. Thank you for retaining your patience. I have an engineer at work that reminds me of you. He has little patience for people with limited knowledge and plain stupidity sends the man sideways for days.

Now, it is unfortunate the link is to modulardepot. Is it possible for you to rehash the information in this thread? I would like to get the information in this thread, as Scott and VT Engines know their poop. I don't want to come across all Nazi style and simply remove the link. Can we compromise on this and have you pull the content to this thread?

I will delete the link and post the info in the next couple of days.

 

[Jenns01TA]

Thanks TGJ. I appreciate it.

 

[TGJ]

The important info from the thread I linked to earlier.

Johnny Langton
I've been browsing around for awhile looking for some data on these offerings,and am not totally convinced on the straight-up stroker vs a straight-up big-bore setup.

I believe I had seen a writeup in one of the mags about a stroker kit,and if I read it right,it lost power with stock heads,cams and such.. On the other hand I've seen the results of a big-bore shortblock only making 29 rwhp,and 43 ft-lbs with all of the stock parts.
I found the dyno sheets for that one after some digging,and saved it:

If this is the case..why would anybody want to use a stroker?
Seems to me the stroke in these engines is already too long-why would you wanna make it longer?

97MattGT
yep, bingo...stroke is already a tad to long then ideal for these engines.

from what i've read though....stroker motor would offer more torque, while the big bore would offer more high rpm power.

so, logic says...get both. 324" mod motor.

Joel's98 GT
absolutely.
the small bore (3.55") 4.6L is probibly the most mass produced american v-8 to have a decent performance backing to carry a bore smaller then the magic 4" mark.
the smaller bore = valves more shrouded by cylinder walls. The way ford has coped with this is multiple valves, and it works.

Scott@VT Engines
I agree with Johnny L on the stroker with stock heads. The stroker makes great power gains down low with stock heads, then the heads become a huge restriction. The big bore allows the heads to breath better, thus the power increase on the big end. From what I've seen, the stroker doesn't increase peak #'s greatly, but does add great midrange. I personally haven't done a big bore 2V as of yet, so maybe MP John can add to this, seeing how he has a big bore in his car.

MP-Mike
The proof is in the dyno graph. The big-bore makes the entire curve, HP and TQ substantially better. Granted, this is normally only done when when a rebuild is in need (same for a stroker).

The question has always puzzled me as to why people elect to go the stroker route before maximizing their bore potential? We are now getting back on track with our B-B 2V project. We have the heads done and the cams are here. There are a few more items that we need to aquire before we can do the assembly. But, the engine will be under the blade again this spring. This time it will be getting the much needed chip.

Note: MP-Mike = Mike Tymensky( Ford Engineer )

white99gt
Can a big bore be done with a cast block or does it have to be a alum one?

And does it require special gaskets ?

MOD ULR
I was told it had to be aluminum and sleeved.

MP-Mike
Our process can only be one to an aluminum block and it does require different head gaskets that are far more supeirior(SP) than stock. The other plus is it allows GT owners to shed some weight from the nose of the car.

FWIW, we have been able to get the cost down.

SCT Guy
Mike, you have no idea how happy I am to have someone else reputable say this. I have known for many, many years that an engine is an air pump. More stroke, with the same induciton parts, is less power due to more friction, it has more mid range torque, but less power.

I have watched the "stroker" craze happen on these motors, tuned quite a few, and had to explain to customers that more stroke is less power. Some believe me, some don't, I don't care, it's about physics. So many people are sold a bill of goods by stroker kit manufacturers (I'm not taking any cheap shots, just making comment) on how much more power they will make, and the answer is less. Yeah, maybe they put better heads and cams in the motor to make better than stock numbers, but those same parts in a shorter stroke motor would make more power, but less torque.

I'm not saying that stroker kits are bad (although I agree with Mike on the bore needing to be maximized first), they do gain torque, and a street car probably feels better at the traffic light with a longer stroke. But, you will lose power on the top end with a longer stroke. There was a thread a few months back about what it would take take some high RWHP 2V, and everyone said a stroker motor. I almost posted and called them all idiots that just pass on mis-information they hear on the internet, but I think Ken talked me out of it...

Note: SCT Guy = Jerry Wrobleski( Former Ford Engineer, Former President of SCT, Considered by many to be the best Ford Tuner )

white99gt
What kind of time frame is envolved in something like that?

KenB
Jerry,
I don't remember saying that, but I don't doubt I did

Also, it rules out some class racing because the 4.6 is limited to 289ci for the 4.6 in many classes. Pure Street is one that comes to mind.

291cipwr
quick question? how much can you bore out the cobra block ? could you do a .40 overbore? and isnt the bore/stroke ratio important ? is there a way to shorten the stroke ? i have a couple ideas i could share if anyones interested but id like those questions answerd first ...thanx guys

MP-Mike
We can normally have a block done in under 2 weeks (sometimes as quick as 1 week if the planets are aligned right). We do try to keep sleeves on the shelf. Typicly, the wait is normally for the block or the pistons. The actual machine work is only a couple of days.

Stefan Breuer
What about the big bore vs, stroker in blown applications? I was under the impression that BB would have trouble with anything above 15psi. Is this True?

Johnny Langton
Well,an engine is simply an air pump,so if you can get more air into it,then you're gonna increase the output.I strongly beleive the larger bore does a much better job of this by the unshrouding of the valves vs a stroker that just increses displacement via the longer stroke.I see that as a potential problem with airflow..
You've got the same valve shrouding that the 4.6L has in stock form,but now you've added extra cylinder area that must be filled to keep the same VE.

Johnny Langton
Here's the numbers right out of the 5.0 mag....

Stock 4.6L vs VT Stroker Short Block
------------TQ-STK----HP-STK--TQ-Stroker--HP-Stroker
3,400------274.2-----177.5------341.0------220.8
3,500------282.6-----188.3------340.3------226.8
3,600------284.5-----195.0------339.1------232.4
3,700------290.6-----204.7------343.3------241.8
3,800------296.2-----214.3------326.3------236.1
3,900------303.0-----225.0------320.9------238.3
4,000------298.2-----227.1------303.0------230.7
4,100------293.2-----228.9------301.7------235.5
4,200------306.3-----245.0------296.7------237.3
4,300------306.2-----250.7------286.5------234.6
4,400------301.2-----252.4------285.7------239.4
4,500------301.3-----258.2------273.0------233.9
4,600------299.6-----262.4------268.0------234.7
4,700------300.5-----268.9------263.8------236.1
4,800------296.9-----271.4------256.5------234.4
4,900------292.5-----272.9------253.9------236.9
5,000------289.7-----275.8------251.9------239.8
5,100------282.0-----273.8------245.2------238.1
5,200------276.3-----273.5------245.3------242.8
5,300------272.2-----274.6------241.0------243.2
5,400------261.0-----268.4------241.6------248.4
5,500------250.4-----262.2------235.9------247.1

Apparently I did read it right..it lost HP in the higher rpm range where you're gonna use it on the dragstrip.
Take the gains of the big-bore and those of the storker,and do a hp/$ calculation...
Or even better..do the averge for hp under the curve,and then do the hp/$ calculation..
It's pretty clear what I'd want.

greenbird
So if increasing the stroke is a bad thing, decreasing the stroke may result in more power, at the cost of torque. Then you go big bore to make up the difference in displacement, and you've got a very potent engine.
so has anyone ever tried?

with a bore of 3.7", the same displacemnt as stock would have a stroke of just 3.265", and pistion speed would be the same at an rpm 8.5% higher.

Scott@VT Engines
It's all dependant on the rest of the mods with the stroker though. Forced induction has shown great midrange power. Don't forget, that the big bore must be done on an aluminum block, so the costs are even greater with the big bore. Stock heads/cams, yes the big bore is the better hp producer. However, with the proper head and cam selection, a stroker can achieve great #'s as well. 2 different ways to achieve cubic inches, 2 different outcomes. It all comes down to picking your own poison. For high boost applications (18psi+), then the stroker is the most reliable method of adding cubes.

doopie
Doesn't the true value of a stroker lie in the ability to lower compressions and boost it. Now the air Pump can hold more in the backstroke, add more fuel and you have a larger combustion. So for the comparison of stock to stock you will defenitely lose power. You need to add more air and fuel now that you increased displacement. At higher RPMs you are trying to move more air then the inputs and outputs can support. Eve nwith better flowing heads you are still trying to suck in a lot of air and move it. Lets see the same comparison with a 14lb blower attached to it.

With the big bore you get the effect of the hemi engines. You have an unshrouded valve set that allows more flow get around and through the openings. Hemis have a hemispherical head that creates a funnel into the valve with more valve placement configurations.

If money permitted I would do the Big Bore Stroker and put around 14lbs through it. But since that is another 2K I am going to stick with the Stroker and someway to get 14lbs in the cast iron block.

Scott@VT Engines
We've spoke with Oliver about destroked billet cranks. There will be a few test engines being done by us in the future. Between Jim's outlaw car, a twin turbo'd cobra a customer has, and an n/a project, we're going to try some one off things to see what works, and what doesn't. Ya never know what it can do until you build it and try.

Flo Bee
One of the oldest tricks in the book for engine builders. It's just not yet common practice for the mod motor.

Scott, in the future, we might have some applications that could use such a setup as you'll be testing, so it'll be interesting to see how it turns out. Should prove to be a quick revver. I'm sure I'll be in touch about the reduced stroke engines with you.

For those of you wondering about where such technology is standard practice, you can look toward the small blocks used in NASCAR applications. Engine builders will play with bore and stroke sizes depending upon the track size, since some tracks require a quicker revving motor than others.

With a motor with already such small bore, obviously you're going to want to unshroud the valves. I would tend to believe that the relatively small bore would hinder some of the ported applications in airflow from time to time, with some of today's improved modular porting. I wouldn't discount the obvious power advantages of the increased stroke for many applications, however.

My own personal experience with these strategies comes from the smaller scaled OHC engines used in motorcycles and ATVs, but much of what I learned there carries over. It's very neat to see the modular aftermarket move toward some of these changes, though.

Stanman
Once again - years ago Chevrolet tested a 392 Can-Am (big bore) and a 396 with stock bore and stroke. Heads, intake, cam, and compression were the same. The purpose of the test was to compare short stroke with long stroke with as few variables as possible.

The 392 revved quicker, higher, and made more horsepower. No surprise there. The surprise was that it also made more torque across the board.

They also tested 427s and 454s. A couple of the conclusions they came to were that:

All other things being equal, the shorter stroke engine will always make more hp per cubic inch.

The increased drag (resulting from higher piston speed and higher bearing loads) from a longer stroke can offset the benefits of extra leverage.

While a 427 will make more hp/inch, a 454 will make more total power.

Applying this to the 4.6, looking at JL's comparison chart, I think I see some parallels but we're dealing with relatively restrictive heads. In this case the smaller engine made about 10% more hp than the stroker. But the stroker makes huge torque gains. Why doesn't the bigger engine make more hp? It has to be restrictive heads and/or cams. And there's only so much we can do with 2v heads.

I'd really love to see a big bore 5.0 compared to a stroker 5.0. I am personally convinced that the big bore would be preferable.

Now, that said, don't forget that the ultimate 4.6 stroker is the 5.4, which isn't particularly impressive. Look at Lightnings vs. 03 Cobra tq and hp and IMO the bigger engine just doesn't have a clear cut advantage.

But - stroke is cheaper than bore. And, the low end torque of the stroker is pretty strong. Is it posssible that the stroker with 3.55 gears might be as quick as a 4.6 with 4.10s in the same car?

NewGTer
The data shown within this thread is constitent within each of the test parameters. Engine dyno/engine dyno and chassis dyno/chassis dyno. You would need to make some assumption in determining driveline losses to attempt to correlate the data.

Has any of the magazines conducted a similar test using a big bore in a stepped process? Data correlation would be easier other than the engine dyno variance.

97MattGT
in a 5.0 big-bore vs. a 5.0 stroker, using identical H/C/I....the big-bore will win.

There's no real need to have that test, other then the fact to see HOW MUCH the difference really is for a mod motor.

it's pretty basic. The big-bore gets the extra displacement, WITHOUT adding more friction, AND unshrouds the valves.

Where as the stroker just adds more friction, and requires the heads to supply more flow, while the valves are still shrouded.

doopie
**********
WITHOUT Adding Friction
**********

You will add some friction but in both cases it is negligible. With a stroker you increase proportionally the length of the stroke to the circimference.
With a big bore you increase the circumference of the friction and now the same length and power must push the piston in a larger circumference.

They are negligible in either case but you still add friction with a bore. Now with proper lubricstion you reduce the friction all together.


Great thread.........

NewGTer
Anyone have info on rpm limits between these?

Flo Bee
Larry, I think there's a general misconception that because a motor is a stroker, it can't withstand RPMs. That's not really the case. It's just not going to rev out quickly like a bore motor with less stroke will.

RPM limits would really be based more upon the components used in the motor and what kind of power adder is being used, if any.

KenB
I disagree. With all things equal, the big bore will make more power in the higher RPMs.

Johnny Langton
And it will be more reliable with less bearing wear,and also less prone to spin rod bearings.

MP-Mike
The following rpm's are based upon a 4,200fpm (feet per minute) piston speed. This is a general recommendation for N/A performance street engines with forged crank, rods and pistons, built for longevity.

4.6 Stock 3.543 stroke = 7,100 rpm
Stroker 3.750 stroke = 6,700 rpm
5.4 stock 4.165 stroke = 6,000 rpm
De-stroked 3.265 = 7,700 rpm (just for greenbird)

The addition of power adders, (blowers, turbos and nitrous) can have an adverse effect to these #'s as they increase the mechanical stresses of the recipricating parts. There are also other things that factor in to this equation also, such as, piston/rod weights, length's.

98 2vgt
Wow! We used to have this conversation back in 1969!

Back then it went like this....

Take a crank from a 283 chevy, (3.0" stroke) put it in a 327" that has a 4.0" bore and a 3.25" stroke crank... and at 4.0"x3.0" you have an instant 302. Big bore and revs like crazy..

sleeper
I think you'll add a bit more friction with a stroker motor, because of the increased side loading on the piston.

MP-Mike
A longer stroke engine will not rev to the same rpm's as shorter stroke engine given the same grade of parts. See my previous post regarding piston speeds.

I graphed the #’s that JL posted to get a better visual of the curves.
Here’s what I see,

3,400rpm- the torque is at its peak on the curve and on the way down at a very rapid rate.
3,700rpm- the horsepower peaked and went stagnant. It only gained another 6.6 hp over the next 1700rpm.
4,200rpm- Both the HP & TQ levels dropped below the stock engine.

From the #'s, that would make a good towing engine with the low rpm peak torque. Much like the 5.4.

I hate dissecting posts but I have to on this one (sorry doopie)

Quote:
Now the air Pump can hold more in the backstroke, add more fuel and you have a larger combustion.
1) and this would be no different than a big-bore. They both require more air.

Quote:
So for the comparison of stock to stock you will definitely lose power.
2) Why did that not happen to the Big-Bore? (see graph at the start of this topic)

Quote:
You need to add more air and fuel now that you increased displacement. At higher RPMs you are trying to move more air then the inputs and outputs can support. Even with better flowing heads you are still trying to suck in a lot of air and move it.
3) See #2

Quote:
Lets see the same comparison with a 14lb blower attached to it.

4) Boost pressure is a byproduct of restriction. Remove the restriction and boost pressure levels drop.

Quote:
With the big bore you get the effect of the hemi engines.

5) This scenario can only be used when you are talking about 4V’s. This case happens to be regarding 2V’s which is your typical wedge type head.

Quote:
You have an un-shrouded valve set that allows more flow get around and through the openings.
6) Hence the reasoning behind using a Big-Bore. Minimize bore restrictions and maximize flow capability.

Quote:
Hemi’s have a hemispherical head that creates a funnel into the valve with more valve placement configurations.
7) See #5

 

[TGJ]

Continued

doopie
What is the rod length of a Big bore engine. I assume 5.93 the same as the stock motor. The Stroker motors use a rod length to center of 5.82 correct? So a shorter rod length of th similar materials makes it stronger because it is less prone to flexing and cracking becasue of weak areas. Now I do recognize that .1 on the connecting rod is not much to cheer about it still will be stornger for like materials. The crankshafet is a different story as it takes the second brunt of energy the longer lobes have to be stronger hence the cranks must be forged to handle significant boost that people will want to apply.

Also if you calculate surface area of friction per application you come up with these numbers through the duration of the stroke:

Stock: 35.08
Stroker: 37.76
Big Bore: 38.02
BigBore Stroker: 40.28

Take into consideration the duration of the force applied Delta T is roughly .21 you have to utilize the same force to push the piston .21 inches with a surface area of 37.7 greater than if you were to push it 0 inches at 38.02 hence your power losses at upper RPMs. As you increase the rpms you decrease efficiency and the resulting horspeower from the work performed.

So does it make sense that the stroker makes less power at higher rpms Yes does it mean it is not a good thing. Your note on a good tow motor yes good for the guy sitting in the traffic light looking for the win to the next stop light or an auto crosser or road racer that does not get to keep the motor running high in the band when going from 100-30 nd then having to get back up in hurry. Some torque is not a bad thing.

MP I do not mind you tearing apart a thread of mine if you could post some technical data behind it. Theiry is a great thing of inovation but specs that you can post from the secret hideaway would be better.
2) Why did that not happen to the Big-Bore? (see graph at the start of this topic)

see friction data.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lets see the same comparison with a 14lb blower attached to it.


4) Boost pressure is a byproduct of restriction. Remove the restriction and boost pressure levels drop.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How can you remove the restriction in a combustion engine?When you increae displacement(cylinder size in this example) you create a larger pocket allowing the cylinder to intake more air. Since air is compressible you can put more air in it so you either need to increase the pump capacity of the boost source or decrease the cylinder size. Most prefer to increase bboost source to get more air in quicker creating the pressure required to support the increased fuel, timing, and other necessities of a combustion engine.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With the big bore you get the effect of the hemi engines.


5) This scenario can only be used when you are talking about 4V’s. This case happens to be regarding 2V’s which is your typical wedge type head.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Many shops will whore out the head to crate a larger chamber and remove the shrouding which in fact rounds the top. This allows for better flow allowing more air enter the cyclinder during the intake cycle. The same engine works on 2V and 4V interchangeably so some people will want to understand what they do on the bottom end affects the overall picture.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You have an un-shrouded valve set that allows more flow get around and through the openings.


6) Hence the reasoning behind using a Big-Bore. Minimize bore restrictions and maximize flow capability.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Looks like we agree on another thing now I feel honored.

Thanks I am still learning. I was an old Chevy guy and got into Mustangs with an 88Gt and then a 89 GT. Now as I can afford nicer things I am getting into modulars and it is a different world. I may have to sell my new SHM Stroker kit and just get a .03 overbore rotating assembly.

b1nyc
I still wonder if you can run 16-18 pounds through the 305ci big bore reliably spinnig to 7000 rpm's?

Scott@VT Engines
Easily. Been there and done that before. We build 324 longblocks for a production car that runs 18psi. Car puts down nearly 800rwhp, emissions legal and warrantied (obviously the manufacture sells their cars with a warranty). Never an issue thus far. How much more I'd trust going through a big bore with the current sleeve setup (used by us, MP, etc.) is sketchy. We don't recommend it because we've never done it, and don't like customers to be guinnea pigs.

TriBlkCobra
Doopie, I think what Mike said is a great way to express it. Boost pressure IS a byproduct of restriction. Intake restriction. Think about a postive displacement blower. Its more straight forward for that application. They output a fixed amount of air per revolution. Thats it. So for a given short block if you change out the heads to a higher flowing set, the pressure registered on you boost gauge WILL go down because the engine is now more efficient and flowing more air.

Flo Bee
I'd say that these are very conservative numbers, Mike. But I must agree with you to some extent, since it very much depends on so many variables. I've been told by some others that specialize in mod motors that some more is possible, but those combos used probably vary. At any rate, at some point you lose the point in turning the R's, anyway, as efficency will drop.

We'll see what the coming months hold for some of the bore and stroke varieties. If demand is up enough, I might be able to talk our in-house engine builder into testing some of this out.

doopie
I agree with everyone and like the explanations I have seen so far I just know that I read some of the posts here and on corral and you can't believe all of it. MP has some good info and in some of the posts like SCTGuy was mentioning some people can give out bad info and being an engineer I like to see the actuals not the readers digest version. It makes for a fuller picture when trying to understand some thing seems would be so easy for most. I guess this thread would be under the bench racing thread since it is all hypothetical and based on different setups

So Why cant the cast iron block be bored and sleeved like the aluminum. Would it not withstand the machining process without warping or is it just not feasible? I would assume cooling the sleeves would be difficult becasue of heat transfer between two metals. Could you create a waterjacket around the sleeves by altering the flow path of the cooling system?

I would love to bore and stroke mine and not have to have an aluminum block even though the costs have come down in the past year and the weight savings would be nice.

MP John
The "actuals from secret vaults" are what keeps us ahead of them (whoever they are).

As for the cast iron big bore, well, you should keep coolant running between the cylinders similar in your engine. The process is called wet sleeving. Its been done in a modular

Note: MP John = John Tymensky( Ford Engineer )

ROG30Y
I would like to see the affects of the stroker on a 4v head.

i remmember years ago when messing with the 5.0,s everyone was talking about what a waste it was to run a stroker because power numbers werent going up with the buildups we were seeing.the main thing was everybody was using there same induction and exhqaust system and werent reaping the benefits of the extra cubes.once they started puttin some big heads and intakes on the 347,s they started making some very good power.

i think a stroker on a 4v would actually work pretty well,but if a had my chouce i would have both

97MattGT
well, if that's what you want to see....then look no further than the 2000 Cobra R.


For the most part, the 5.4 is nothing more than a stroker 4.6 with a taller deck height.


Interesting note though, the 5.4 R engine made like 375 hp (though it was under-rated) and when ford made that FR500 car and used the "spray-bore" 5.0 block, the hp number was like 415 if i recall. This is comparing a 5.4 stroker to a 5.0 bore....now i wonder how the numbers would stack if it was a 5.0 stroker?

MP John
Just think of a Big Bore 5.4L!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Black99
That'd be what, ~358 cubic inches John? Would the 2V heads present a restriction at this point, even if they were ported?

sleeper
If you're going to go with a big-bore 5.4L, why would you go with 2 valve heads? Why wouldn't you use 4 valve or 3 valve heads?

 

[ranger04]

Yeah, don't scew around with people with limited knowledge, I've only been running fords since the 70's. However, I am new to the mod motors. It still seems your taken it personally and aiming your anger at me, I like everyone else I'm just trying to learn about these engines. Reguardless, it's crazy to say there is no benifit to larger displacement. As far as the JDM kit, I don't know, I can only go by what they say and that they know what thier talking about. I never said I was buying it, I don't know what I'm going to do yet, I'm just exploring the possibilities and trying to learn, didn't know I would get attacked for it. Since my knowledge is limited on mod motors, I say again, you need to take up your beef with JDM. It doesn't matter if I post it or not, cause it's in the mag that most of us get. My real argument isn't that thier kit is on the up and up or not, it's that there is benifit to more displacement. I am comming to realize that were arguing about to different things, for that I'm sorry. Seriously, I think you should call them and see what they have to say in thier defense. Then PM me or something and let me know the skinny on that kit as I trust your knowledge of these motors. They may not even talk to you, I don't know. Any how, I'm sorry that it has gotten to this point, were just on two different tracks of thinking, thats all, not that your wrong, or that I'm wrong about added displacement. The problem seems to be this kit and that you would by far know better than me as I am new to these engines. I would rather learn from you than argue, so please except my apology. I didn't know I was doing wrong as it's in the mag we get, "sorry".

 

[bigcat]

just a quick comment here. magazines are there to sell magazines so that their advertisers will spend more $$. magazines make their money on advertising, not on copies sold. if an advertiser wants to run a feature, then the mag will make it appear that the product is golden. magazines are not unbiased. they will lead you in what ever direction the advertising dollars are taking them.

please dont take something in a magazine as gospel, just as another opinion. those of us on the forums get better knowledge from actual people doing unbiased testing, and learning from others mistakes than from magazines.

the bore/stroke ratio has been covered many times. not everyone has seen them, as its not discussed everyday. about once a year it seems that each topic is rehashed, and those that are new to the topic get bashed. lets remember that we were all new to each topic once, and we learned from it. lets share the knowledge in a respectable manner so that we are ALL properly informed. this goes for any topic-from CAIs/tune to mufflers, mid pipes, and power adders.

 

[TGJ]

Yeah, don't scew around with people with limited knowledge, I've only been running fords since the 70's. However, I am new to the mod motors. It still seems your taken it personally and aiming your anger at me, I like everyone else I'm just trying to learn about these engines. Reguardless, it's crazy to say there is no benifit to larger displacement. As far as the JDM kit, I don't know, I can only go by what they say and that they know what thier talking about. I never said I was buying it, I don't know what I'm going to do yet, I'm just exploring the possibilities and trying to learn, didn't know I would get attacked for it. Since my knowledge is limited on mod motors, I say again, you need to take up your beef with JDM. It doesn't matter if I post it or not, cause it's in the mag that most of us get. My real argument isn't that thier kit is on the up and up or not, it's that there is benifit to more displacement. I am comming to realize that were arguing about to different things, for that I'm sorry. Seriously, I think you should call them and see what they have to say in thier defense. Then PM me or something and let me know the skinny on that kit as I trust your knowledge of these motors. They may not even talk to you, I don't know. Any how, I'm sorry that it has gotten to this point, were just on two different tracks of thinking, thats all, not that your wrong, or that I'm wrong about added displacement. The problem seems to be this kit and that you would by far know better than me as I am new to these engines. I would rather learn from you than argue, so please except my apology. I didn't know I was doing wrong as it's in the mag we get, "sorry".

Ok,

No need to apologize...

I never said the Stroked Mod V8's do not work, they just don't work well Naturally Aspirated. With the right Forced Induction kit, they are a great option. That has been what I have been trying to tell you.

You need to take what you read in a magazine with a grain of salt, actually that goes for all info( internet, builder, etc. ). If you read the article, they tell you the stroker gained 46 RWHP. They tell you that they added ported heads and a compression ratio bump. Now for somebody like me, I know where that power increase is from. The reason why I am questioning it. For someone who doesn't know any better, well...

I am trying to help you out.

If I was to contact JDM, it would have to be Jim Junior. Jim Senior would tell me to pound salt, been there, done that.

 

[07BLKSTANG-GT]

Correct me if I am mistaken, but the big bore short stroke setup is what GM is using in the new Corvettes?

 

[Gearbanger 101]

Correct me if I am mistaken, but the big bore short stroke setup is what GM is using in the new Corvettes?

You are mistaken. The new 7.0L Z06 uses both big bore and big stroke to achieve their 427CID status. 104.8-mm bore x 101.6-mm stroke to be exact, vs the LS2's 6.0L 101.6-mm bore x 92-mm stroke to achieve it's 364CID status

 

[ranger04]

Yeah, I was kinda wondering that myself after thinking about it. I was wondering if they would of gotten the same bump with the mods, ported heads and raised compression without the stroker. I bet it would be real close and if so, then the only real value of the kit would be the forged pieces. Which is probobly way over priced as thier selling it as a stroker. I know one of the benifits of a stroker is torque at a lower rpm, but 18 cubic incches really isn't enough to really even help there much. Even with the 5.4 it's a 50 foot pound bump and thats with 49 cubic inches and no hp bump on the current 3V 5.4. Anyway I look at it, still looks like FI is the biggest bang for the buck on these engines. Say with a pro charger, you get a huge hp and torque bump without doing anything else if you so choose. After talking with you, I don't see anyway at this point that you can go NA without spending large amounts of money and still not be up to the level of FI. Even the 5.0 dohc is I think is only around 4 or 500 hp I forget which, but it cost like 10 grand and alot of work. For half of that you can get the same gains from a pro charger with an intercooler with not near the hassle on installation.A'm I now seeing this correctly, or am I still off on my thinking some where. I need your help TGI so I don't waste alot of money. My goal is around 430-450 hp at the wheels so I can run with the new challenger and camero, but I don't want to have to swap internals, at least not now. I don't care about out running everyone, as there is allways someone faster, I just want to be respectable and not fall prey to chevy or dodge with my small cubed motor. I mean I love the engine and I'm really impressed with the 3v 4.6 for it's size, but you know what I mean.

 

[ranger04]

Also thanks for the advise bigcat, I've been messing more with 4x4's over the last several years as I got away from my ford race cars a little bit. I recieve several off road mags and never had any reason to question the articles on lifts and so fourth. We found the articles to be helpfull and informative in most cases. Take lift kits for example, they would use several brands on different vehicles, go through the install, then say what they liked or didn't like about a kit after testing it, the same with tires and so on. They never seemed to lean toward anyone particular manufacturer. They may like bilstien shocks over rough country, but then they would like the rough country lift kit over trailmaster. You see what I'm saying. So I just figured what was in MM&FF was like that, tried and tested, but thanks to you guy's I now know all is not as it seems in those pages. Thanks for the heads up. I'll still get the mag as I have a subscription and it is a good place to find parts and web sites as 3/4 of it is advertisers, also some cool cars.

 

[TGJ]

Yeah, I was kinda wondering that myself after thinking about it. I was wondering if they would of gotten the same bump with the mods, ported heads and raised compression without the stroker. I bet it would be real close and if so, then the only real value of the kit would be the forged pieces. Which is probobly way over priced as thier selling it as a stroker. I know one of the benifits of a stroker is torque at a lower rpm, but 18 cubic incches really isn't enough to really even help there much. Even with the 5.4 it's a 50 foot pound bump and thats with 49 cubic inches and no hp bump on the current 3V 5.4. Anyway I look at it, still looks like FI is the biggest bang for the buck on these engines. Say with a pro charger, you get a huge hp and torque bump without doing anything else if you so choose. After talking with you, I don't see anyway at this point that you can go NA without spending large amounts of money and still not be up to the level of FI. Even the 5.0 dohc is I think is only around 4 or 500 hp I forget which, but it cost like 10 grand and alot of work. For half of that you can get the same gains from a pro charger with an intercooler with not near the hassle on installation.A'm I now seeing this correctly, or am I still off on my thinking some where. I need your help TGI so I don't waste alot of money. My goal is around 430-450 hp at the wheels so I can run with the new challenger and camero, but I don't want to have to swap internals, at least not now. I don't care about out running everyone, as there is allways someone faster, I just want to be respectable and not fall prey to chevy or dodge with my small cubed motor. I mean I love the engine and I'm really impressed with the 3v 4.6 for it's size, but you know what I mean.

Well, you hit the nail on the head. Staying N/A and making good power is going to cost a lot of money. 400+ RWHP is attainable N/A on a $9000.00 budget. FI is the way to go, it is by far the best bang for the buck.

That is the route I am looking at going with my 05 Mustang GT. For me, I am looking at the Single Turbo kit from Powerhouse or the Single Turbo kit from Turbo Horsepower. I was considering the Kenne Bell Twin Screw or Procharger, but I have never owned a Turbo-charged car before so that is why I am leaning towards a turbo. I am sending you a PM with some info on the Turbo kits I am looking at.

 

[Jenns01TA]

Nice exchange gentlemen. Amazing what we can all learn when we exchange information and knowledge with respect.

TGJ, spectacular recap of the original thread content. Thank you. Two

This is a good thread I'd like to see bumped up from time-to-time.

 

[White05GT]

As informative as this thread is, there's one aspect I missed -- the issue of longevity. For those who are considering stroker mod motors for daily drivers, it would be informative to know how long the stroker mod motors are holding up in daily driven applications. Note, my concern is with the stroked 3V mod motors, not with how well the 5.0 and 5.8 engines have fared over the years.

 

[ranger04]

Good question, since the 3V only came out in 05, it still maybe a little early to find out unless thier total junk and didn't last long hee hee.

 

[Gearbanger 101]

Good question, since the 3V only came out in 05, it still maybe a little early to find out unless thier total junk and didn't last long hee hee.

I believe they're still essentially the same short block design as the 2V that's been around since 1992. Only the heads and front timing cover have gone through any real changes from the 2V to 3V application. So I would imagine the data from any 2V strokers would be sufficient as a model.